These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Rubicon] Interceptors

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Randy Wray
Warcrows
THE OLD SCHOOL
#381 - 2013-10-10 05:25:49 UTC
Spurty wrote:
50% less cargo and 50% more lock range plz :O

Must admit, we're going to see interceptors with cynos and cargo expanders appearing on capital loss mails so sort of like them close to the 100M3 mark (250 LO needs 100M3).

However if something has to go to get that lock range, I vote cargo bay area :O

Quote:
And what prevents you from lighting a cyno in an interceptor and then titan bridging a more capable cyno ship onto the interceptor so that you then can bridge in whatever the hell you want?

Solo Pvper in all areas of space including wormhole space. Check out my youtube channel @ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd6M3xV43Af-3E1ds0tTyew/feed for mostly small scale pvp in lowsec/nullsec

twitch.tv/randywray
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#382 - 2013-10-10 07:40:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
Wild suggestion appears: what if most of any inty's cargohold is to be replaced with ammo bay like the one on Hoarder (you can store ammo, cap boosters, scripts and nano paste there AFAIK, so no loss for interceptor's direct usage).

Should solve any kind of inty cyno or inty hauling issues unless CCP specifically wants inties to be cyno/small hauling capable.

Also, make sure that the ship can automatically take charges from ammo bay to feed its mods unless current code already allows this (I'm not aware if it's only possible with regular cargohold or not).

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#383 - 2013-10-10 10:33:15 UTC
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Wild suggestion appears: what if most of any inty's cargohold is to be replaced with ammo bay like the one on Hoarder (you can store ammo, cap boosters, scripts and nano paste there AFAIK, so no loss for interceptor's direct usage).

Should solve any kind of inty cyno or inty hauling issues unless CCP specifically wants inties to be cyno/small hauling capable.

Also, make sure that the ship can automatically take charges from ammo bay to feed its mods unless current code already allows this (I'm not aware if it's only possible with regular cargohold or not).


only problem i'd have with this is a 65m^3 mobile small warp disruptor is pretty standard cargo for inties, wouldn't want that going away

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#384 - 2013-10-10 12:47:23 UTC
Capqu wrote:
only problem i'd have with this is a 65m^3 mobile small warp disruptor is pretty standard cargo for inties, wouldn't want that going away

Hm, I'm pretty sure that it's a lot less that a single shot of liquid ozone, but then another wild thing appears: a cargo expanded lolfit cyno inty...
Oh well.

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Randy Wray
Warcrows
THE OLD SCHOOL
#385 - 2013-10-10 14:30:42 UTC
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Wild suggestion appears: what if most of any inty's cargohold is to be replaced with ammo bay like the one on Hoarder (you can store ammo, cap boosters, scripts and nano paste there AFAIK, so no loss for interceptor's direct usage).

Should solve any kind of inty cyno or inty hauling issues unless CCP specifically wants inties to be cyno/small hauling capable.

Also, make sure that the ship can automatically take charges from ammo bay to feed its mods unless current code already allows this (I'm not aware if it's only possible with regular cargohold or not).

Having a ship that's completely incapable of looting modules is unacceptable IMO, a better solution to this would be to not allow them to carry liquid ozone. Problem with this is that we get the nullified shuttle again as you mentioned.

Solo Pvper in all areas of space including wormhole space. Check out my youtube channel @ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd6M3xV43Af-3E1ds0tTyew/feed for mostly small scale pvp in lowsec/nullsec

twitch.tv/randywray
Prester Tom
Death By Design
#386 - 2013-10-10 14:42:31 UTC
Am disappointed the Crusader hasn't been given an optimal boost as one of its bonuses. It seems a little like CCP has missed the mark somewhat with actual useage of this ship class: a) to tackle (either long points or slightly tankier short point versions) and also flying anti-tackle, which is where ship like the Crusader and Taranis should excel. Diving each into a possible fleet and combat variant would a) make the most sense with how they're flown and b) fit with doctrine legacy. An intie with weak tank is useless if it cannot operate as a kiting ship; their weakness should be in dps and tank. A crusader should be able to hit with scorch outside of OH scram/web range, otherwise it is a pointless ship.
Syri Taneka
NOVA-CAINE
#387 - 2013-10-10 14:43:48 UTC
The lock range is still an issue, as others have said, but I can accept that a fleet interceptor will be able to benefit from another pilot tagging them with a Remote Sensor Booster to help mitigate that issue. Combat inties (which is and always will be an oxymoron IMO) are probably going to default fit scrams anyhow, so lock range isn't so big a deal to them.

For example:

Current:
Stiletto with L5 lock range skill, full squad bonuses (+10% lock range) and a non-scripted RSBII = 48.3km
Stiletto with L5 lock range skill, full squad bonuses (+10% lock range) and a range scripted RSBII = 62.22km

Proposed new:
Stiletto with L5 lock range skill, full squad bonuses (+10% lock range) and a non-scripted RSBII = 53.13km
Stiletto with L5 lock range skill, full squad bonuses (+10% lock range) and a range scripted RSBII = 68.442km

In short: TEAMWORK. Abuse your fleet mates. Not everyone needs a tackle mod.
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#388 - 2013-10-10 16:03:43 UTC
Syri Taneka wrote:
The lock range is still an issue, as others have said, but I can accept that a fleet interceptor will be able to benefit from another pilot tagging them with a Remote Sensor Booster to help mitigate that issue. Combat inties (which is and always will be an oxymoron IMO) are probably going to default fit scrams anyhow, so lock range isn't so big a deal to them.

For example:

Current:
Stiletto with L5 lock range skill, full squad bonuses (+10% lock range) and a non-scripted RSBII = 48.3km
Stiletto with L5 lock range skill, full squad bonuses (+10% lock range) and a range scripted RSBII = 62.22km

Proposed new:
Stiletto with L5 lock range skill, full squad bonuses (+10% lock range) and a non-scripted RSBII = 53.13km
Stiletto with L5 lock range skill, full squad bonuses (+10% lock range) and a range scripted RSBII = 68.442km

In short: TEAMWORK. Abuse your fleet mates. Not everyone needs a tackle mod.


i dont know about you but in my guild we use a single scoutackle per system and couldn't really afford to double that just so they can use their point range properly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Suitonia
Order of the Red Kestrel
#389 - 2013-10-10 17:48:00 UTC
Capqu wrote:
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Wild suggestion appears: what if most of any inty's cargohold is to be replaced with ammo bay like the one on Hoarder (you can store ammo, cap boosters, scripts and nano paste there AFAIK, so no loss for interceptor's direct usage).

Should solve any kind of inty cyno or inty hauling issues unless CCP specifically wants inties to be cyno/small hauling capable.

Also, make sure that the ship can automatically take charges from ammo bay to feed its mods unless current code already allows this (I'm not aware if it's only possible with regular cargohold or not).


only problem i'd have with this is a 65m^3 mobile small warp disruptor is pretty standard cargo for inties, wouldn't want that going away


Yeah losing out on the ability to fit a small warp disruptor would suck.
Another thing to consider would be maybe giving Interceptors a small fleet hanger. (100m3 or so) AFAIK you can store anything there but you cannot light a cyno by having LO in the fleet hanger. So could give them a basic cargo-hold for most ammo/charge purposes. Say 40m3 or so, then 100m3 Fleet Hanger (Or just a secondary multi-purpose storage hanger), and you'd have to commit much more to get the cargo-hold up to scratch enough to be able to fit enough LO to be able to light a cynosural field without disrupting an Interceptor for other general purposes.

Contributer to Eve is Easy:  https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos

Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Teth Razor
Chicks on Speed
#390 - 2013-10-10 17:54:23 UTC
Suitonia wrote:
Capqu wrote:
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Wild suggestion appears: what if most of any inty's cargohold is to be replaced with ammo bay like the one on Hoarder (you can store ammo, cap boosters, scripts and nano paste there AFAIK, so no loss for interceptor's direct usage).

Should solve any kind of inty cyno or inty hauling issues unless CCP specifically wants inties to be cyno/small hauling capable.

Also, make sure that the ship can automatically take charges from ammo bay to feed its mods unless current code already allows this (I'm not aware if it's only possible with regular cargohold or not).


only problem i'd have with this is a 65m^3 mobile small warp disruptor is pretty standard cargo for inties, wouldn't want that going away


Yeah losing out on the ability to fit a small warp disruptor would suck.
Another thing to consider would be maybe giving Interceptors a small fleet hanger. (100m3 or so) AFAIK you can store anything there but you cannot light a cyno by having LO in the fleet hanger. So could give them a basic cargo-hold for most ammo/charge purposes. Say 40m3 or so, then 100m3 Fleet Hanger (Or just a secondary multi-purpose storage hanger), and you'd have to commit much more to get the cargo-hold up to scratch enough to be able to fit enough LO to be able to light a cynosural field without disrupting an Interceptor for other general purposes.


The easiest way to fix this cyno problem. DONT GIVE THEM NULLIFACTION! Without nullification there is no real issue.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#391 - 2013-10-10 20:57:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
Randy Wray wrote:
Having a ship that's completely incapable of looting modules is unacceptable IMO, a better solution to this would be to not allow them to carry liquid ozone. Problem with this is that we get the nullified shuttle again as you mentioned.

I'm not really sure if it's possible to forbid them from carrying specific item without too much additional coding. Making it impossible to specifically fit cyno would be easier, but that smells like another arbitray decision, something I don't see CCP doing without at least camo'ing it a bit P

By the way, I didn't suggest to remove regular cargohold completely, and that being said, if CCP didn't want Inties to be nullified shuttles, they wouldn't come up with original idea at all - too obvious to be overlooked by anyone really.

While we are at it, I'm a bit surprized that I haven't seen any "safe flying through null, gg hello kitty online, I unsub" comments. Something tells me that I wasn't looking hard enough Big smile

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Teth Razor
Chicks on Speed
#392 - 2013-10-10 21:36:33 UTC
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Randy Wray wrote:
Having a ship that's completely incapable of looting modules is unacceptable IMO, a better solution to this would be to not allow them to carry liquid ozone. Problem with this is that we get the nullified shuttle again as you mentioned.

I'm not really sure if it's possible to forbid them from carrying specific item without too much additional coding. Making it impossible to specifically fit cyno would be easier, but that smells like another arbitray decision, something I don't see CCP doing without at least camo'ing it a bit P

By the way, I didn't suggest to remove regular cargohold completely, and that being said, if CCP didn't want Inties to be nullified shuttles, they wouldn't come up with original idea at all - too obvious to be overlooked by anyone really.

While we are at it, I'm a bit surprized that I haven't seen any "safe flying through null, gg hello kitty online, I unsub" comments. Something tells me that I wasn't looking hard enough Big smile


I don't think anyone is arguing the fact that CCP knows that these will turn in to Null Sec shuttles. But rather everyone against nullified intys is asking WHY THE HELL does CCP think we need null sec shuttles?

Most people would rather see intys get some sort of unique ability that gives them a viable role in combat, aside from swarming though null sec trying to catch miners and ratters. One that sets them apart from the T1 Tackle frigs.

If you think these ships will help you catch more ratters and miners, you are very mistaken. Most carebears will be in a dead end system with a cloaked scout at the pipe entrance. Most will be safed up by time you get with in 2 jumps.

Pve'ers are not dumb like they were 5 years ago. They will adapt to not being able to bubble spam the ingate, and will start using a scout.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#393 - 2013-10-11 09:13:36 UTC
Teth Razor wrote:
Suitonia wrote:
Capqu wrote:
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Wild suggestion appears: what if most of any inty's cargohold is to be replaced with ammo bay like the one on Hoarder (you can store ammo, cap boosters, scripts and nano paste there AFAIK, so no loss for interceptor's direct usage).

Should solve any kind of inty cyno or inty hauling issues unless CCP specifically wants inties to be cyno/small hauling capable.

Also, make sure that the ship can automatically take charges from ammo bay to feed its mods unless current code already allows this (I'm not aware if it's only possible with regular cargohold or not).


only problem i'd have with this is a 65m^3 mobile small warp disruptor is pretty standard cargo for inties, wouldn't want that going away


Yeah losing out on the ability to fit a small warp disruptor would suck.
Another thing to consider would be maybe giving Interceptors a small fleet hanger. (100m3 or so) AFAIK you can store anything there but you cannot light a cyno by having LO in the fleet hanger. So could give them a basic cargo-hold for most ammo/charge purposes. Say 40m3 or so, then 100m3 Fleet Hanger (Or just a secondary multi-purpose storage hanger), and you'd have to commit much more to get the cargo-hold up to scratch enough to be able to fit enough LO to be able to light a cynosural field without disrupting an Interceptor for other general purposes.


The easiest way to fix this cyno problem. DONT GIVE THEM NULLIFACTION! Without nullification there is no real issue.


Much better solution would be to remove cyno's really.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#394 - 2013-10-11 09:42:30 UTC
Teth Razor wrote:
Pve'ers are not dumb like they were 5 years ago. They will adapt to not being able to bubble spam the ingate, and will start using a scout.


Your faith in humanity's ability to learn from the past is impressive. Sadly, it is also proven incorrect.
Randy Wray
Warcrows
THE OLD SCHOOL
#395 - 2013-10-11 11:40:16 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:


Much better solution would be to remove cyno's really.

Much better solution would be to give them appropriate stats really.

Solo Pvper in all areas of space including wormhole space. Check out my youtube channel @ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd6M3xV43Af-3E1ds0tTyew/feed for mostly small scale pvp in lowsec/nullsec

twitch.tv/randywray
Bubanni
Corus Aerospace
#396 - 2013-10-11 12:04:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Bubanni
CCP Fozzie, can you expand on your thoughts about our overall concern... that we all basicly want more lock range (besides the few who don't see the point, because they like fitting sebos and ionic rigs or signal amps to make their fit work at all)

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#397 - 2013-10-11 12:04:53 UTC
Randy Wray wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:


Much better solution would be to remove cyno's really.

Much better solution would be to give them appropriate stats really.



They don't need much more tbh, if they were all on the same power level as the claw/ranis when it comes to EHP/dps (In relation with their ability for control (mids) ) they would be fine.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#398 - 2013-10-11 12:50:46 UTC
just make it so you can't fit a cyno at all to an inty. THen we don't have to deal with this cargohold nonesense that makes bubbles and looting messed up.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#399 - 2013-10-11 14:19:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Capqu
Due to the nature of the modifications to the warp drives and propulsion modules, the ability to create a cynosural field was lost while upgrading to have immunity to non targeted interdiction. Engineers deemed this an acceptable sacrifice as they could now finally drive, 55.

that is, if the ability to create a cyno is really that much of a concern. i personally don't believe it is, i think a solution where titan bridges are removed entirely and replaced with the ability to put yourself in the fleet hangar and jump with the carrier/titan would be much cooler / immersive and also add some risk to hotdropping - but thats another discussion for another day

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Boogalo
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#400 - 2013-10-11 14:45:04 UTC
The ares needs the old tracking bonus. I can barely hit drones at all with 75mm rails. Testing with a tracking computer which brings it close to tracking with the old bonus, and I can hit warriors just fine when orbiting at 5k/sec.

Or, switch up the bonuses: 5% damage to missile, rockets and hybrids. 7.5% hybrid tracking and Missile/rocket explosion velocity.
3 highs, 3 turret, 3 launcher hardpoints. Powergrid might be come an issue with this setup.